[AfrICANN-discuss] DCA expresses commitment to work with African ccTLDs

Sat Nov 19 20:39:05 SAST 2011

Dear McTim,

You cannot continue to engage DCA
every week in ‘energy-dissipating’ discussions – in the preceding two weeks it
was on CircleID, and now it is on the AfriCANN mailing list. 

Against the backdrop that you
have openly stated your determined opposition and ardent hatred for DCA and its
initiative, it is difficult to imagine what you intend to gain out of this
campaign of calumny that you have commenced against DCA. You state that you
have “no
financial or other interest in ARC, AfTLD, dotafrica.orgor any other group vying for .africa” but your voice is actually more strident than the voices of
those who are officially opposed to DCA.   It is
either you are a paid mercenary of these vested interests that are
opposed to DCA or you are assisting them now, with the hope of getting a policy
advisory role as your compensation sometime in the near future.  If not, what exactly is your interest in these
matters?  

Is it wrong for DCA to express a
commitment to work with African ccTLDs? During your last altercation on CircleID
you insisted that DCA must make a commitment regarding an ‘African solution’,
and here DCA is making a commitment to the African ccTLDs, and you are also
finding fault, it is already quite clear that your reasoning has been befouled
by your open, frivolous and unrepentant antagonism towards DCA. This is highly
regrettable. By your posturing, it is quite obvious that you are not a
disinterested, impartial, detached observer the way you always try to portray
yourself. Your patent bias is rather self-defeating. You are simply another
mercenary that has involved himself in what looks like an African war over
DotAfrica gTLD, and in the process, the ‘Dog of War’ that you are has now entangled
himself in a ‘Fog of War’ with DCA!

Of course, DCA can firmly oppose to the current AU RFP on DotAfrica the same way DCA vociferously expressed its strong
opposition to the earlier EOI process that failed.  DCA is also hoping that the
present RFP process will not see the light of day.  DCA shall not participate in
an extraordinary process that has been introduced to pass or fail a prospective
gTLD applicant outside the ICANN gTLD programme.  Moreover, we already know that your friends
and paymasters on the AU DotAfrica Task Force will use the RFP opportunity to
stop DCA from bidding for DotAfrica; so what is the point of giving credibility
and legitimacy to a farcical process that has been hastily put together to
assist the opponents of DCA?

In any case, whether DCA is
opposed to the RFP or not does not in any way invalidate our viewpoint that “the RFP does not in any way refer to AfTLD.” Please show us
where it refers to AfTLD in the bidder’s eligibility to form acceptable
Consortiums, and we shall say touché. Is the AfTLD not supposed to draw its
membership from the confederation of African ccTLDs the same way the
Confederation of African Football (CAF) draws its membership from the National
Football Associations (or Federations) within each respective African country? Assuming
therefore that this is correct, why the blatant omission of AfTLD in the
stipulation to form Consortium of eligible bidders? It is like the International
Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) reaching out directly to the individual
national football associations and bypassing CAF. Such a scenario will
definitely raise certain questions. Again, we stand by our contention that the
RFP does not refer to AfTLD.

Irrespective
of whatever you ‘googled’ to justify your unremitting antagonism towards DCA,
and regarding whether we are defending the AfTLD or not, we believe the AfTLD
does not need us to speak for it, but the truth must be told nevertheless. It was
the same vested interest group that tried to use AfTLD to achieve its ridiculous
objective of creating a formidable coalition against DCA that is also now
providing support to ARC. It was for that reason they congregated at Ghana to
give a Vote of Confidence to the AfTLD. 

The
question therefore is: what happened to that Vote of Confidence? Is AfTLD no
longer the darling of the anti-DCA groups?  The point is that these people already know
which side their bread is buttered, and as they seek after filthy lucre, they
already understand that the AfTLD does not have a well-oiled financial
machinery, hence they shamelessly switched allegiance to the upstart ARC where
they expect to gain more financially since ARC has the financial backing of
‘new-money’ venture capitalists.

McTim
my friend let us be more objective and empirical in our assertions and analyses.
It is easy for you to ‘google-up’ information that shows you that AfTLD has up
to 24 members. It is strange that you do not find it worrying that within a
continent of 54 countries, that there are more African ccTLDs outside the fold
of AfTLD than within it.   DCA have since performed due diligence on
AfTLD and we know for sure that the legal personality called ‘AfTLD Ltd.’, does
not have this type of ownership that your Google-search has dredged up for you.  We work on legally-defensible facts not things
that have been put out there to fool the public.   We know
that there is a great difference between 24 African ccTLDs being identified as
members of an AfTLD that lacks proper legal establishment (the way you see it),
and perhaps 1 or 2 members of a legally constituted AFTLD Ltd (the way we see
it). 

Finally,
again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Imagine the verbal war that
has broken out today simply because of a media report that DCA has expressed a
commitment to work with African ccTLDs. It is therefore clear that people like
you will work against DCA in any way they could, including sabotaging DCA’s
stated desire to work in cooperation, or form Consortium relationships, with
these African ccTLDs. And you still expect DCA to justify why it as no faith
in the AU RFP process!

Go Figure!

________________________________
 From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: Lerato Mamboleo <lerato.ma at yahoo.com>; africann at afrinic.net 
Cc: "mje at posix.co.za" <mje at posix.co.za> 
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] DCA expresses commitment to work with African ccTLDs

Hi Lerato,

On 11/19/11, Lerato Mamboleo <lerato.ma at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear McTim & Mark Elkins,
>
> It is clear that these negative comments
> are an 'over-reaction' to the plain fact that DCA got a very positive press
> coverage regarding its good intentions for the African ccTLDs and the
> independent media assessment of the Post-Dakar meeting outcomes.

DCA always get good press, it's just that most of it is factually
incorrect, or at least most of the DCA press campaigns are.  A point
that Mark made indicates this.  DCA has complained in the past that it
has been excluded from this list.  This is factually incorrect.  The
list is not moderated at all, it's an open list, so the fact that you
are posting shows that DCA folk are not excluded.

>
> First, we can tell you straightaway that
> there is no strategy to split the ccTLDs from AfTLD. It has always been an
> aspect of DCA's outreach strategy to reassure this important segment of
> their
> inclusive and participatory stake in DotAfrica, and to present
> cross-marketing
> possibilities and capacity building opportunities to the African ccTLDs who
> fear that DotAfrica might further erode their base to attract users and
> registrants. So far, apart from DCA, no other prospective applicant has
> proposed this to the ccTLDs.

I find it absurd that one could assert that the Association for
African ccTLDs has not already pitched this to their members, so I
googled it, and found:

http://www.aftld.org/gh2011/docs/AfTLD_SP_ACC2011.pdf

and http://www.aftld.org/gh2011/docs/AfTLD_dot_Africa_Update-April2011-Accra.pdf

Where this is talked about extensively.  In other words, you are incorrect.

>
> However, having made this essential
> clarification,

which is incorrect

it is important to stress at this juncture that the presumed
> relationship between the AfTLD and the African ccTLD is not really as strong
> as
> it has been made out to be. We have already highlighted the fact that the
> African ccTLDs are actually not the owners of the AfTLD (as a registered
> legal
> entity), which to all practical intents and purposes remains separate from,
> and
> does not truly represent, the African ccTLDs. Even so, AfTLD has probably
> only
> 1 or 2 ccTLDs in its membership list,

or 24 as seen on http://www.aftld.org/html/english/AFTLD_members.html

You could at least do the bare minimum of fact-checking before you
make such incorrect assertions.

so DCA is not doing anything to split
> ccTLDs from AfTLD because these ccTLDs are not part of AfTLD in the first
> place. Regarding your 'understanding' that AfTLD will be applying for
> DotAfrica,
> perhaps you should undertake further detailed reading of the AU RFP for the
> Operation of DotAfrica which insists that Consortia should be formed to
> include
> African ccTLDs. The RFP does not in any way refer to AfTLD.

Wait, I thought you opposed the AU RFP?

In DCA's
> estimation, there seems to be a deliberate plan to exclude AfTLD from these
> matters, and the finger should be pointed more accurately at those who are
> sidelining and undermining the AfTLD,

So now you are defending AfTLD?

Just a few weeks ago, DCA was attacking them?

http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/03/exclusive-commentary-dca-aftld-seeks-mandate-manage-africa/

http://www.domainnews.com/en/three-companies-try-to-undermine-dcas-yes-to-dotafrica-campaign.html

http://www.domainsafrica.com/2011/09/whither-dotafrica-amidst-confusion.html

and most disturbingly:

http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs053/1102516344150/img/149.jpg

there are many other links that one can easily find, all equally full
of untruths and distortions.

As I told your colleague last week on circleid, you can catch more
flies with honey than with vinegar.

For the record, I have no financial or other interest in ARC, AfTLD,
dotafrica.org or any other group vying for .africa.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20111119/359b3f5a/attachment-0001.htm